Originally Posted by chollie

You're scoffing, but there have been TSOs who tried to exert their own authority (federal agents flashing badges) outside the airport - it's happened more than once, although I hardly think it's a frequent occurrence.

I obviously can't speak to all airports or police departments, but I do know that some cops' bosses do not want calls from the local FSD complaining that the cops aren't backing the TSOs. They are stationed at the airport in a supporting role for the TSOs, so it's hardly surprising if some of them see it as an 'us v. them' situation. Brothers-in-arms and all that.

There are certainly some 'good' cops at airports; I've encountered one. The LEs in my family will point out that unfortunately, sometimes even good cops get a 'timeout' and get assigned to the airport, but it is most certainly not a position anyone vies for. Unless a cop gets 'lucky' enough to be involved in an airport disaster (shooting at LAX), it's not a career-enhancing assignment.

Originally Posted by chollie

There's been discussion on this forum - way above my pay grade.

The upshot is that TSA would lose more than they would gain. The gropes are far beyond what an ordinary LE would be permitted to do as a routine measure. The administrative fines and penalties with no right to due process would have to change to a more transparent legal issue.

Think of the photography issues. It's legal to photograph at many airports. Pax is taking photos - not necessarily even of the checkpoint - and a TSO complains. Pax cites the law. TSO calls cops, cops show up and, in far too many cases, shut the photographer down - not based on the law, which in this case the cop should know as well or better than the TSO, but based on the demand of the TSO.

Originally Posted by DaveBlaine

You create a Federal Agent Screener-type position that doesn't have to rely on other agencies to do its job. And it has the weight and power of the Federal Government, DHS, etc. They're already spending Billions on this agency, why not?

Originally Posted by chollie

What positive value would we get for the additional expenditures that we do not currently get?

Assign an underperforming 'problem child' cop to the airport because you can't fire him. Tell him to keep his nose clean and stay out of trouble and maybe someday he'll get to be a 'real' cop again. Local taxpayers are already on the hook for paying for this guy.

Now send him back to the streets and shell out additional money to hire a 'federal armed screener' at very high pay and benefits to perform the task the cop used to perform - sit around, eat donuts, and wait for something, anything, to happen to relieve the boredom.

I'm not seeing the benefits here. If we want to go that route, re-assign air marshals to high-profile airports to perform this function. We're already stuck paying for them.

Originally Posted by DaveBlaine

I think we're coming at it from two different approaches. Let me try a metaphor. Remember when you were a kid and left home alone and your mom told you not to use the stove? Well, what if you were empowered to use that stove instead of waiting for an adult to get home?

Same thing with the TSO's. Instead of waiting for them to get a police officer (in the metaphor "an adult") we empower them to do what needs to be done. And then we don't assign any bad apple cops to airports. None would be needed. Put cops back out on the streets where they can crack down on street crime.

Originally Posted by chollie

I posted earlier - if you want a fuller account, courtesy of TSOs who posted here regularly, you'll have to search the forum (and it can be a pain, sorry).

A frequent TSO poster (allegedly a trainer) told us that TSA recognizes and defends against the possibility of multiple bad actors departing from different airports, meeting at a common connection airport, and assembling the stuff they have brought into something nasty.

For instance, that was used to explain why a shell casing gets confiscated. What can you do with a shell casing? Well, you can meet friends in the sterile area who have arrived on other flights, bringing more necessary bits. Put it all together and you have a problem.

So...according to that teaching, this guy may have had contraband on him that he planned to give to a partner he was meeting on arrival or he may have been stashing it somewhere in the terminal so that someone else could retrieve it and wreak havoc.

Originally Posted by gingersnaps

Might make sense, if empty shell cassings are not prohibited in my experience.



I would say that is a clear violation of the of what at least one Federal Court has required about notice. And in my experience TSA always puts up a sign when they are screening at boarding gates.

Originally Posted by chollie

I have never seen such a sign - not when TSA was gate-screening and not when TSA wandered the terminal testing people's liquids, including beverages clearly purchased in the terminal for immediate consumption.

Originally Posted by petaluma1

Have they stopped this nonsense? I've not read/heard any complaints in quite some time.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog

The last thing we need is LEO status for TSA screeners. Nothing good would come from doing that.

Originally Posted by chollie

Interesting training the TSOs get.

It took many months to get TSOs to accept NEXUS cards as valid ID, yet somehow TSA seems to have gotten the word out pretty effectively to never say 'yes' when a pax asks if s/he is being detained.

I wonder what happens if a screener decides to exercise his/her 'discretion' and actually tell a pax s/he is being detained?

Originally Posted by chollie

They don't (supposedly) have authority to detain, but as long as pax are in the sterile area, it doesn't matter how they got there - they and their belongings are subject to search (and retaliatory delay) at any time.

They can't, however, threaten you with missing your flight (assuming you don't have a connecting flight).

As Rand Paul found out, calling the cops doesn't make any difference.

Originally Posted by DaveBlaine

What about passengers and their belongings being subject to search at any time while in the sterile area?